Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 1740
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, J
Arun Kumar Jambulingam – Appellant
Versus
Reserve Bank of India – Respondent
CIC/RBIND/A/2024/604169
The CPIO's timely response to an RTI application suffices under the RTI Act, and information sought must conform to the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f).
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 2(f) - RTI application regarding guidelines for recovery agents - The CPIO provided a response within the statutory period, but the appellant claimed non-receipt of complete information - The FAA upheld the CPIO's response, stating the appeal was not maintainable as the information was provided timely. (Paras 1, 6, 8)
(B) RTI Compliance - The Commission noted that the information sought did not conform to the definition under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, yet the CPIO provided relevant clarifications. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information on RBI guidelines for recovery agents, but was dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, leading to a first appeal and subsequently a second appeal to the Commission.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found no grounds for intervention as the CPIO had provided timely responses and the appellant's claims of non-receipt were unsubstantiated.
Issues: The main issues were whether the CPIO's response was adequate and whether the appeal was maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the CPIO complied with the RTI Act by providing a timely response, and the information sought did not meet the definition of 'information' under Section 2(f).
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.08.2023 seeking information on the following points:
1. “What are the key guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) regarding the functioning of recovery agents during debt collection activities?
2. How are recovery agents regulated by the RBI, and what are the specific requirements they must adhere to?
3. Can you provide information on the CCRA (Certification Course for Recovery Agents) and its significance in the banking and NBFC sectors?
4. What are the objectives of the CCRA certification course, and how does it contribute to maintaining ethical practices in the debt recovery process?
5. Have all banks and NBFCs implemented the RBI guidelines for recovery agents, or are there any instances of non-compliance?...” etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.09.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
“Inputs have been sent to the nodal department in RBI for providing a consolidated reply to the applicant.”
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.12.2023. The FAA vide order dated 11.01.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 30.01.2023.
5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Siddhant, CAPIO along with Nayeem Akhtar, Assistant Legal Advisor attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Respondent relied on the contents of their written submissions stating inter alia as under:
“4. In response to the said RTI application, the CPIO furnished reply vide his letter dated September 22, 2023 and provided the available information to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act (Copy marked as Annexure- ‘B’). Regarding query Nos. 1& 2, the CPIO provided the available information to the appellant. For query Nos. 3, 4 & 8, the CPIO replied to the appellant by stating that what was sought was an opinion and not “information” as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. For query Nos. 6, 7, 9 & 10, the CPIO informed the appellant that information sought was not available. For query No.5, the CPIO replied to the appellant that no specific information was available in that regard. However, the CPIO provided some available information on that point also.
5. The appellant preferred a first appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), which was received on dated December 12, 2023 and registered as RBIND/A/E/23/00971 (Copy marked as Annexure-C) on the ground of non-receipt of reply. In the appeal, the appellant mentioned about receipt of a letter dated September 22, 2023 informing that his queries had been forwarded to the nodal department in RBI for providing a consolidated reply to him. In the first appeal, he alleged that he had not received any response from the nodal officer or any other concerned authority despite lapse of the period specified under the RTI Act. The appellant requested the FAA to direct the concerned authorities to provide the information and to take appropriate action to ensure compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
6. After carefully considering the RTI application, the reply given by the CPIO and the contentions of the appellant in the appeal, the FAA dismissed the appeal vide order dated January 11, 2024 (Copy marked as Annexure-D). In the said order, the FAA observed that the RTI application was received on August 23, 2023 in RBI and the CPIO of the nodal department i.e., Department of Regulation (DoR) provided the reply to the appellant on September 22, 2023 which was uploaded on the portal on the same day; thus, the CPIO, DoR provided the reply within the statutorily prescribed period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the RTI application. The FAA further observed that the appellant preferred the first appeal in respect of RTI request Registration No. RBIND/R/E/23/04693/1 and the suffix (/1) might has been ad
